US v. Matthew Alexander Nicoll

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:12-cr-00010-RAJ-FBS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000131338]. Mailed to: Matthew Alexander Nicoll. [17-6324]

Appeal: 17-6324

Doc: 5

Filed: 08/04/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6324

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MATTHEW ALEXANDER NICOLL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:12-cr-00010-RAJ-FBS-1)

Submitted: July 31, 2017

Decided: August 4, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew Alexander Nicoll, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Marie Yusi, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6324

Doc: 5

Filed: 08/04/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Matthew Alexander Nicoll appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 801 to the
Sentencing Guidelines. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion.
See United States v. Muldrow, 844 F.3d 434, 437 (4th Cir. 2016). Under § 3582(c)(2),
the district court may modify the term of imprisonment “of a defendant who has been
sentenced . . . based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered,” if the
amendment is listed in the Guidelines as retroactively applicable.

18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2); see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(a)(1), (d), p.s. (2016).
Guideline § 1B1.10(d), p.s., lists the retroactively applicable amendments, and the list
does not include Amendment 801. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion
in denying Nicoll the relief he sought under Amendment 801. See United States v.
Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 249 n.2 (4th Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

2